About your Search

20110707
20110707
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)
of afghanistan to protect us from terrorist threats. by failing to draw down the number of troops in afghanistan, we continue to focus efforts away from the terrorists and needlessly put american soldiers in the line of fire. but this story is about more than numbers and figures, about it's real people who sacrifice everything to keep us safe. on sunday, april 3, of this year, a 21-year-old young marine named harry lu died while serving the country in afghanistan. he was a son of sandy and allen lu, the sister of carmen lu, and he was my nephew. harry died while serving on watch dudey -- duty in helmand province. his unit's goal was to provide security to locals. but three short months before he was set to return home he was gone. ending this year -- this war will save american lives. ending it will let us focus on fighting terrorism around the demrobe. ending the war will save money -- globe. ending war will save money at a time when we need it most. it is time to end the war in afghanistan, bring our troops home and begin seriously addressing our real security needs. the chair: the gentlelady
of the defense department as well as the wars in iraq and afghanistan. it does not contain any money, by the way, for libya, but they could be redirected towards libya later if the defense department wanted. but there are not that many major issues. there will probably be a vote or two about afghanistan and summary directing of money. for example, we have already seen debate that would switch money from weapons or maintenance programs for medical research in the defense budget, so there are many small caliber debates that will be going on. an update on the defense spending bill from john donnelly and "congressional quarterly." heated up date on bet -- keep an update on that at cq.com. >> senate republicans and others discussed raising the federal debt ceiling. >> on tomorrow's "washington journal," a look at the ongoing negotiations of raising the federal debt ceiling howard rosen of the peterson institute for international economics after with a look at be intending free trade agreement with columbia, south korea, and panama. "washington journal" on c-span. >> this weekend on booktv on c- span2
a week in afghanistan. among the expenditures, our payment for projects that are rebuilding infrastructure in afghanistan, roads, bridges, schools, in some cases hospitals. "the washington post" recently reported that the afghan government is taxing american aid. we send money there to build a road. we have to hire contractors in order to do that. and the afghan government is trying to tax that money for their own coffers. so it's not enough that our taxpayers are spending billions of dollars on projects to rebuild their infrastructure. the afghan government is literally trying to reach in the pocket and double dip and tax our taxpayers for our taxpayers' generosity in giving them money. . how does that make any sense at all? after this was reported, they are stepping up their efforts to grab that cash. they are doing things like threatening to detain contractors. if they don't pay up, take money that's assigned to build that road and put that money in the afghan covers, the afghan officials are threatening to detain our contractors. they are denying licenses to our contract
military engagements in iraq, afghanistan, and now libya. i speak of the need also of a new smart security to keep america safe. today will be my 399th speech. i look forward to reaching number 400 next week, and i will continue this until my last day as a member of congress, which gives me approximately 18 months, 1 1/2 years, time to bring our troops safely home. during this week, the week that the house is debating the appropriations, i thought it would be fitting to focus on more spending, on the staggering costs that taxpayers are being asked to bear for our military occupation. $10 billion a month is a lot of money, and that's the price tag for the privilege of continuing to wage a 10-year war against afghanistan. $10 billion a month. the american people who are writing that check have a right to ask and to get answers to some very important questions. where is that money going and what exactly is it accomplishing? what are we getting for our $10 billion a month? are we more secure here at home? is the afghanistan central government introducing the rule of law? have we not already de
and done, iraq and afghanistan will suck the treasury dry to the tune of at least $3.7 trillion. enough already. mr. chairman, the pentagon is like that teenager. you keep giving the kid the keys to the car and he keeps crashing it. it's time we cut him off. we must draw the line and we must draw it here. no more money for libya. no more continuance in libyan hostilities. i urge my colleagues, support this amendment. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. poe: the gentleman says we have gone to war in the name of humanity. in other words, the president's war in libya is so that we can preserve humanity in libya. in the history of peoples, as the gentleman from california has pointed out, in the histories of countries, it has always been the king, the dictator, the tyrant, the chief, the leader that has sent that particular country to war. so when our ancestors got together and they formed a new and perfect union, they decided it would not be the leader,
known patriot. you fly a lot to afghanistan to play for the troops. are you a traditional republican? >> no. >> you seem complicated politically. you are not either one or the other, really? you are more for one than a party. >> i'm like the majority of people we don't want bible thumpers running the country and we don't want pot-smoking hippies running it. people are like hey, chill out. let's figure this out and give people the opportunities and the tools to, we say live the american dream. i know there's things wrong on both sides. belief wise, more republican and less government and creating opportunity. if you had to strictly say one of those, yes, i sway more that way. then i would sway left on other issues. >> do you think the wars in afghanistan and iraq have been justified? >> you know, that's tough to say. when you get into politics, i know this much. i don't study political science. >> forget the politics. are we winning from what you have seen? >> we need to have a presence on the ground. it's like somebody keeping an eye on the bully around town. if you let them free, he
♪ >> you're obviously a very well-known patriot. you fly a lot to afghanistan and iraq to play for the troops. it means a lot to you. are you a traditional republican? >> no. >> because you seem complicated politically. you are not either one or the other, really? you are more for your country than for party. >> i'm like the majority of people we don't want bible thumpers running the country and we don't want pot-smoking hippies running it. you know, there's a middle ground there that i think most of the around the world are. hey, chill out, man. let's try to figure this out and give people the opportunities and the tools to, what we say, live the american dream, and i know there's some things wrong on both sides. not i would sway belief-wise more republican and less government and creating opportunity. you know, if you had to strictly say, one of those, yes, would i sway a little bit more that way and then i would sway left on, you know, other issues. >> do you think the wars in afghanistan and iraq have been just wars? >> you know, that's tough to say. when you get into polit
' voicemail from those fighting or killed in afghanistan and iraq. so finally the statement from james murdoch, the son of rupert murdoch, saying if allegations are true, it is inhuman that the paper and the company had failed toss to the bottom of repeated wrongdoing. what it says here is wrongdoers turned a good newsroom into bad. this it won't carry any advertising, but the money from subscriptions will go to good causes, and it will be the last edition. >> richard, just because the end of "news of the world" doesn't necessarily mean the end of the investigation or scandal? >> oh, there are two investigations. one into phone hacking scandal. documents have been revealed showing the newspaper paid the police either for tips or whatever. on top of that there's whole questions of civil litigation. no, this is not going away. why they have chosen to close the newspaper will be the interesting question, was it on moral grounds alone or commercial grounds? this was a brand that was destroyed. >> all right. richard quest, we appreciate you, as always. thank you so much. >>> we're getting close to
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)